Talk:Death metal

ATTENTION

All Death metal fans who are experienced in making portals please help create the Portal:death metal as i am not that experianced in making portals i will need your help thank you Headbanger44

The Death Metal History did not end in the 90s

The history section really deserves an addition about what happened in the first 20 years of the new millenium. Death Metal did not end in the 90s and is still alive with many active bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.209.218.209 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This needs a longer page

Look, this is quite frank and may be an incendiary comment but the page on black metal is really really long while the death metal one is short. For someone new to Death Metal, they should know all about the genre, and it's controversies - there are bound to be quite a few! Also, this genre is arguably more well known than Black Metal (I've done a poll, this is original research, I know, but 98% of people have heard about death metal, yet only 56% have heard about black metal)and therefore this needs more info. Anyway, I know very little about the basic death metal movement, being more of a punk myself (I only really like the music, and don't follow the scene except for the black vs death stuff), but i feel that Death Metal deserves a better page than what it has. Any thoughts? Afifanno1 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, sorry, we need to DEFINE the genre. The page needs to be a bit clearer, with some clips from legit bands like Possessed, maybe have some from melodic ones like Children of Bodom, and explain the difference between Black Metal and Death Metal because, to be honest, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot apart from the vocals and lyrical themes. That's just me though and let's make DEATH METAL become a FEATURED ARTICLE! Afifanno1 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Complexity

what complexity?79.173.229.147 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Death-metal bands such as Suffocation, Cynic, Atheist, Dying Fetus and even latter-day Cannibal Corpse have technical, complex riffs. Some of these bands even crossed into genres like jazz fusion. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

--

I'm at a loss what to make of this claim, as jazz-fusion is without a doubt the least complex form of jazz there is. The Death (and other) metal I've heard, while eschewing verse-chorus, don't do anything more complex so much as just different. I also wonder at the level of musical education of whoever wrote the whole article. Have they heard the atonal compositions and theories of the Second Viennese School, for just one example, which predated Death Metal by about 80 years and is far more complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that bands like Cryptopsy, Necrophagist or Obscura are not using complex composition ? One does not exclude the other, there can be different genres or schools of music that produce complex material. zubrowka74 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's how you see it, I think you're on your way to proving my point that what's complex to you ain't complex to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Schuldiner helped push the boundaries of uncompromising speed and technical virtuosity

...How so? Morbid angel by 1989 was creating some of the first virtuoso music in this genre while Death was still fairly simple by this point. Same goes for Atheist.

His solos, mostly. Death's music was fast since Scream Bloody Gore, but Schuldiner infused melodic elements in his solos with his death metal rather than the more atonal approach of his contemorarires.

I think Paul Masvidal and Sean Reinert should be credited for helping Chuck Schuldiner with "Human". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.54.8 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Death metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is well known to be a very bad genre of music, with unnecessary screaming." Vandalism?

Yeah. I reverted it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 23:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, death metal gained more media attention as popular record labels like Earache Records and Roadrunner Records began to sign death metal bands at a rapid rate."

another case of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.55.249 (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and if it is, its definitely not obvious. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Possesed

It really seems like this article tries to play down the importance of Possessed, calling them a Thrash Metal band and claiming Death established half of the things that Possessed already did two or three years earlier. Possessed's Seven Churches and their Death Metal demo were the first pure Death Metal works and this article tries vehemently to deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.162 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I went to the Possessed page and saw the footnotes to the references supporting the premise that Possessed were the 'godfathers of metal'. Well, the same writer from Allmusic.com who referred to P as godfathers, Ed Rivadavia, states that Chuck Schuldiner is widely recognized as the father of death metal. Does it get much plainer? When we think of Possessed, we old schoolers obviously respect Jeff Becerra's gutteral voice and their musical brutality and speed (wildly copied by others in the thrash genre). However, Death brought an element of doom (minor key melodies, etc.) into what they were doing that stood the test of time, at least as far as 'creating a genre' called death metal goes. When running around praising Seven Churches let's just all remember that in 1984 Death forerunner Mantas did the demo Death by Metal followed up by Death's first demo Reign of Terror. If there is any genesis to this genre, overall, the majority of writers (Borivoj Krgin, Jeff Kitts, Don Kaye, etc.), who at the time were all metal tapetraders, point to Florida and not California... A Sniper 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way you put it Possessed was death metal at one of its earliest incarnations as was Mantas. To argue who came first is irrelevant.Navnløs 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Navnløs, I would tend to agree with you - and of course this is all ancient history. It is simply that this user (68.149.147.162) seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder about the notoriety of Death, with this comment and an edit to the Death page, and so I jumped on the high horse. But I also think it doesn't make one bit of difference over 22 years later. A Sniper 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you are saying and agree.Navnløs 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre influence

I listed Black metal as a stylistic influence in the music infobox. This is because there is no doubt that early black metal bands like Venom (band) and Bathory (band) had an influence upon death metal almost as much as thrash. Also, if you listen to early Possessed, widely considered to be the first death metal band ever, it sounds to me almost like black metal and I know others who agree. Navnløs 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's safe to say that no one is gonna argue this comment with me? I'm surprised, I expected a bunch of people to jump on me telling me that death metal was in no way influenced by black metal. I'm pleased everyone seems to agree, though.Navnløs 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and could not possibly understand anyone who thinks that what became death metal was merely an offshoot of thrash. As much as Chuck was into Slayer (at first), he still mentioned Venom and even the doom elements (and minor melodies) of Sabbath. By the late 80s he liked Cathedral and I recall us going to see a Belgian doom band called St. Vitus. Yes, certainly black metal (and doom) was influential on death metal and not just thrash. Cheers for the change, A Sniper 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I don't really disagree either. It's a thing we can only say looking back at the 80s. By the time death metal emerged there was no such thing as black metal. Yes, there was Venom, there was Bathory and other early black metal but there was no real devision into genres. In retrospect we can attribute genres to early extreme metal bands, but by then it was all one and the same.

Deathmetal.org [1] states:

During the years 1983-1985, a style emerged that was between death metal, black metal and thrash, and from this all of the succeeding genres were to derive their musical inspiration. Bathory, Sodom, Hellhammer/Celtic Frost formed the basis of this style, augmented in the Americas by Possessed, Slayer and Sepultura.

I even remember reading an 80s interview where Quorton said Bathory was death metal. He said so because he thought death metal was a cooler term than black metal.

For example, listen to Morbid Visions by Seputura. Is it black? is it death? Is Hellhammer death? black? doom? thrash? Is Possessed thrash? death?

Maybe we should change it to early-black metal, or first wave of black metal to avoid misconception (or just leave it this way) Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Death Metal and Black Metal points out that the early style, as seen in Hellhammer-Sodom-Bathory around 1984, was undifferentiated between death metal and black metal, and bordered on thrash (called "crossover thrash" by people who call speed metal "thrash metal"), but was clearly differentiated from speed metal although there were intermediate acts, notably Destruction, Rigor Mortis, Kreator, et al. Schuldiner arrived late in the game as he was making bad speed metal in the Venom style. Most death metal originators emphasize the importance of Motorhead, Discharge and NWOBHM in the influence on their music. Possessed, Master/Deathstrike, Sepultura and Celtic Frost were producing mature albums by 1985; Slayer by 1983; Morbid Angel released "Abominations of Desolation" in 1986. These are the major influences on the genre. I believe I know what I was talking about. I was there writing about music and later (1992-1998) being one of its more influential radio presenters in Los Angeles. death metal maniac (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I see the points everyone is making and understand. It might be more correct to make it "early black metal" or "First Wave Black" or something, but I think that other than adding confusion we don't need to be quite that specific and should perhaps just leave it the way it is. No? Yes? Navnløs 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can get a solid source about BM's influence, it may be noteworthy. I keep having to revert the edits by Logical Defense simply because he slips his BM influence phrase right in the middle of a cited statement, which is very misleading.--Wick3dd (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we already had this conversation and everyone agreed. It's a fact. There is no doubt at all that early black metal influenced early death metal bands GREATLY which means that black metal influenced death metal. It's not that much of a stretch. Just listen to early Possessed or early Death. As to w/e Logical Defense is doing, I have no idea what that's about, but I have always found Logical Defense to be a great contributor to many many metal related articles. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Navnløs, and also for your contribs as well. The sentiment's mutual. :) Logical Defense (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh his statement is true. I am not doubting BM's influence. He just needs to get the sourcing right so it is not misleading. --Wick3dd (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with user Navnløs. If there was a black metal influence to death metal, it could be solely credited to Venom.

Bands that are normally considered "back metal" today weren't black metal in the early to mid-1980s. Bathory and Hellhammer were labelled death metal back then. Tom Warrior himself, on page 78 of his Are Morbid? book states that Hellhammer "would later be credited as being among the founders of death metal". I'm also fortunate enough to have a 1995 interview with Quorthon stating that Bathory called themselves "death metal" because they wanted didn't want to be associated with Venom.

Also, Terrorizer (which seems to be the major refrence point to extreme metal-invested editors around here) calls Venom "thrash", which further confuses matters...

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Morbid Angel

I think you have a valid point about MA, Kameejl. My objection was that the band were mentioned too many times as being at the genesis of the movement, and that would be incorrect. I felt there should be a line of sorts between Slayer, Possessed and Mantas/Death on the one hand, and the latter 80s bands such as MA. I remember Terry Butler, Chuck & I being invited by Dave Vincent to come see MA in 1989 and they were just getting off the ground. Alternately, Obituary were already getting popular in Florida by that time and Roadrunner was having success with them. In fact, other Florida acts were all being launched at the same time, and MA was but one of that second wave. In any event, I've not touched your edit. best, A Sniper 14:16, 06 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your addition again, not because it's bad, but because it doesn't fit the intro. If you can find a nice place in the body, please put it there (I think it's valuable information). I see you're an early DM fan. Maybe you could help me out. I have written a part of the history of death metal (see User:Kameejl/Death metal) but I'm stuck. I'm planning to put it in the article some day but there is to much that has to be told. Maybe you could give me some help or sources. I would be very grateful! Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcass?

I see much talk of Slayer and Death here, but not much of Carcass. Surely such a key influence should be mentioned? --Wick3dd 07:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They created goregrind. Big difference. But then again, they did help create melodic death metal w/ their album Heartwork, so you might be justified. But I wouldnt put them on. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to. Many people list them as a key factor in melodic death metal. --Wick3dd (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Carcass should be listed in the main article, but they should definitely be included in the Goregrind sub-genre section, they created Goregrind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.154.22 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing OTEP as death metal is a bad source...

Please speak out here [2]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? OTEP is nu-metal. They just have screaming vocals. A common misconception. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Subgenres

I got rid of the subgenres without articles. If you disagree, revert it and leave a reason here. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All you got rid of is brutal death metal, and it has already been determined it is a "real" genre. You should know what I'm talking about. I mean after all, the metalcore article has NO sources, but it is true that it is a real genre. So what if brutal death metal doesn't have its own article? It's a real genre. Also, the black metal page lists some subgenres that do not have their own pages, I believe. No big deal. Navnløs (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All right.

"Also, the black metal page lists some subgenres that do not have their own pages, I believe." No, I checked. All of their listed subgenres have articles.

"You should know what I'm talking about." I do. No big deal, though. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright no need to get uncivil. The black metal article does have one section that is a "subgenre" of sorts. The modern black metal section talks about the black metal of today, which is a subgenre sort of. You don't have to think of it like that, even I can see the flaws in my argument, but brutal death metal still belongs in this article. Navnløs (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alright no need to get uncivil." Sorry if I came across as uncivil. I didnt mean to come across as such.

"...brutal death metal still belongs in this article." All right. I understand. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Too be honest I think a better approach than listing endless sub-genres is to focus on regions/scenes/producers (I think someone else mentioned this too). This gives a far truer representation of what death metal really is, what it sounds like, and where it came from. The two obvious main regions for death metal are Florida and Stockholm. But you could also mention Chicago, Gothenburg, Finland, UK, mainland Europe... All of these scenes had distinctive sounds that were very much based upon the resources available to them in their local areas. You could talk about the various sub-genres within these geographical sections, for example 'melodic death metal was common in Gothenurg', etc.Robotiq (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deathcore?

Do most of you think this is a real genre? I ask because I nominated the deathcore article, and if we end up keeping it, I think we would have to add it on this page. I encourage all of you to go to the deathcore page and view the arguments, maybe submit your own. I would appreciate more help on this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick3dd (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bands like Day of Suffering, Barrit and Suicide Nation were releasing deathcore way before any of the bands listed in this section (about 1997). Going back further still, some of the old Nuclear Blast bands like the Righteous Pigs were definitely releasing deathcore in 1990 (There was also a German band called Deathcore too). In summary, I'm not sure this is a 'real genre', but the links between death metal and ****/punk have been clear from the very beginning (Entombed/Nihilist, for example), and this needs to be made more explicit in the history section. Robotiq (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sadly a real genre, but it is in no way and in any form Death Metal I say it should not be on this page. Scabrosus (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 9/28/2010 Scabrosus.

It is a different genre from death metal. I think it should have its own page. What would make something not a real genre? Mason092 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Error

I've read all these death metal subgenres, I did found one error in Brutal Death Metal: Cannibal Corpse. Can I ask who put CC in B Death Metal? They have nothing to do with BDM, they are one of the best known and leaders on Death Metal. If someone does not agree, tell it here, but before that, compare CC to Krisiun for example and listen other BDM bands and compare to CC, you'll know what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.217.246 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that there before. I definitely agree with you. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam Dunn and DM influences

Logical Defense, please stop adding onto a cited source. If you doubt the source, look him up on Wikipedia. He is legit and, arguably, has done a ton more research than anyone editing this article.--Wick3dd (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what do mean with the phrasing "adding onto a cited source"? I added "onto" a "source" how? I added my own verifiable source, yes, but certainly didn't conflict with any legitimate sources beforehand.

Second of all, you can't use Wikipedia as a source FOR a Wikipedia article. Time you looked into Wikipedia:Original_Research. Also, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Third, despite whatever conflicting opinions you and I share, the bottom line is I'm the one providing a traceable, regarded source with citation, and you are not. On a helpful note, you can even view the clips on YouTube under two separate accounts, if you'd like (not mine), at [3], or [4], and also feel free to check out the other parts in which black metal is also discussed in particular. You may also be interested in checking out this documentary on Gorgoroth, viewable here [5], in which black metal's origins are also layed out as preceeding even the declaration of a genre called death metal. However, in regards to the source I am citing, the timeline of events as researched in the film, and confirmed by contributing artists, is clear as day.

If this "Bill Zebub" film is something legit (and by the way, I have yet to be able to find any external source, video clip, or otherwise transcipt of the "quote" you speak of, even though that should be your job, as the claimer) then add it with the proper Wikipedia formatting. The source needs to be reliable; again, see WP:RS. Also check out Wikipedia:Citing_Sources and WP:V for help on the formatting issue, as just making a claim in an edit summary of what you maybe heard here or there isn't considered valid.

Also, understand that I'm not necessarily against or for whichever claim. This isn't a personal issue; whether black metal came before death metal, or vice versa, makes little difference. I'm simply guarding whichever side has the most reliable and well-regarded proof. Logical Defense (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I did not add that source. I just keep this article sane, I don't contribute new info. Second off, I did not say to use Wikipedia as a source. I said to check out his article if you want to see whether he is legit. Third, my problem is not your argument. What you did was slip it in the Sam Dunn quote, even though his quote does not support what you said. Get a source, and add it in a separate sentence. Just say something like "However, other people say x". Thanks.--Wick3dd (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you just said in your response makes little sense. If you are trying to keep this article "sane", then don't defend unverifiable citation. If you wanted me to check out the Wikipedia article to see "whether he is legit", then technically you are saying I should use it as a source. And finally, the Sam Dunn quote does in fact support what I said; which is death metal came after black metal. Period. I don't understand where you're confused about this, telling me to "get a source"; it's there. I added it. End of story. Again, take a look for yourself before making assumptions.

As for your input that something should say "However, other people say x" (in this context, "other people say death metal came before black metal"), that would be fine if such an opposing viewpoint was A) true, and B) could be supported with a verifiable source. Like I said before, I'm open for this, but you need to have legit backup to even bother saying this. Afterall, as Navnløs tried explaining to you above, this is a dead issue anyway; it's a fact that black metal emerged before death metal. Clear now? Logical Defense (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was wrong there actually. I hadn't paid much attention to your statement. Here is what you need to do, add your source right after the BM statement and put the Sam Dunn one before it on the thrash statement. I think that should work fine.--Wick3dd (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already there after the sentence. No need in placing the same citation twice in one sentence, as the cite describes the entire context. Again, you're making it clear you hadn't watched the source right here online in itself before drawing these conclusions. Please refrain from doing this in the future when possible as it will save everybody a lot of time. Thanks. Logical Defense (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, you are missing my point. I will show you right here.

Building off the speed and complexity of thrash metal(insert Dunn here), and the raw extremities defined in early black metal , death metal came to true prominence by the mid 1980s.[1]

From what I gathered, the Sam Dunn quote was dealing with thrash. You need to put your source right after the BM statement, then move the Sam Dunn one to the end of thrash metal, because that is what the source is for.--Wick3dd (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sigh" you say? Are you serious? What don't you understand about the quote? It mentions BOTH thrash and black.

"From what I gathered, the Sam Dunn quote was dealing with thrash"... have you STILL not actually LOOKED at the source? In fact, this is the quote, word for word. I'll write it out for you since you still don't care to just click the video links provided: "Building on thrash and black metal, death metal's ingredients are guttural vocals, machine gun guitars, and horrific album art. [...]."

Thrash and black are both mentioned, therefore making it just fine for the citation to be placed at the end of the sentence: Building off the speed and complexity of thrash metal, and the raw extremities defined in early black metal [...]. The film also explores both of those genres prior to the segment on death metal, putting the text written in this article even more in proper context.

Again, you make it obvious that you haven't even watched the film before making these claims, because had you, you wouldn't have any issue here with the citation. So please, hold your "sigh" and actually watch it before deciding what you think it does or does not mention. Logical Defense (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I completely realized what you were saying the other day. Somehow I got you mixed up with some other users (the Bill Zebub one for one). I feel like a complete moron right now. I hope you will forgive me, as I have had a week with finals, helping my friend with legal problems, and dealing with an alleged alcohol violation. I have not had the time I wanted to look into everything. I apologize for being militant about something I had failed to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick3dd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Don't worry about it. Apology accepted. Logical Defense (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive rewrite needed

Someone in the archive looked as if they were going to attempt a comprehensive rewrite of this article, something that is sorely needed. The biggest problems lie in the section following 'late history', and in particular the endless subgenre-isation (is that a word? You know what I mean). Whilst it may be interesting to focus to some extent on regional differences (and perhaps that could use a subsection itself) the list of fusion genres is fatally flawed due to lack of sources and original research. As an example, I've been listening to death metal for over 15 years, and whilst it is possible I've completely missed the concept of 'slam death metal', it seems unlikely as I'm well aware of the bands listed under this banner. Do we have a reliable source for this? There is a similar problem over on the grindcore page, and there were problems over at black metal for a while (oddly enough 'war metal' and 'mincecore' don't qualify as real genres, more advertising tools). I don't want to just jump in and delete, say, the slam death metal section, but unless it gets properly sourced (i.e. not from a band's Myspace or your mate's review site), I'm afraid that's what needs to happen to it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I will look into it once finals are over. I would agree that this page needs much work.--Wick3dd (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The second part of DM's history needs to be rewritten and the subgenre sections need work. I tried to look up sources for the subgenre part but I couldn't find any reliable sources. I'm afraid the subgenre sections won't be that easy to rewrite. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it might be tricky. Recently Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance magazines wrote four-issue long death metal specials, with specific sections on at least progressive death metal and death/grind. Black/death is legitimate, but only in the same way the doom/death or thrash/death, so I'd be tempted to group all of these together under fusion genres with links to separate pages. As for technical, brutal and 'slam' death metal, I remain to be convinced of their usefulness as actual genres. They're descriptive certainly, but that's not quite the same. At least part of the problem is that many bands fit into all of these categories, as well as some of the others... most 'brutal' death metal is also 'technical' and may well be 'progressive' or 'melodic' or whatever. And I contend that slam has no legitimacy at all. It's certainly not come up in any credible source I've read. Another thing that would be interesting to put into the article would be regional scene differences... again I can onto this if you like, using Terrorizer, ZT and Mudrian's book as sources? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we generalize a bit more? Prog, death/grind, and blackened should be easy to source. The rest are just subgenres of subgenres. We could maybe mention the different playing styles, but even that would be hard to source. --Wick3dd (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone of an anonymous IP also removed "Slam death metal". I almost reverted immediately, but stopped my overreaction and thought... had I even heard of the term before Wikipedia? I tried to find a legit source for it to merit its replacement. Alike Kameejl, I couldn't. So I left it removed.

• applauds* Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however. The rest still need valid citation, but at least they're more recognized of the subgenres. Logical Defense (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well, though the other fusion genres bit could probably be combined with other sections. We talk about fusion genres, and let's face it, you've got death/doom, death/grind, death/black, death/thrash and probably death/reggae. They're all fusion genres of some sort. I still quesuion 'brutal death metal' as a separate subgenre... it strikes me as simply defined as a counterpoint to 'melodic death metal'. Either why, I want to see some sources defending it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to you all: go and search for sources. I did some research for the rewrite I did and couldn't find any sources other than sources stating "band X is Y death metal" or just simple enumerations of genres. I couldn't find sources describing a genre. I didn't look for magazines but did look for websites and books through google. Maybe melodic death metal isn't that hard to source, the rest probably (brutal, technical, blackened, progressive and fusion genres) is. Nevertheless, please look for sources, we need them. Kameejl ^(Talk) 17:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorizer certainly wrote specific articles on death/doom, death/grind, funeral and drone doom and progressuve death metal (for instance, see the edit I did for death/doom). I can have a go at start up articles (i.e. complete rewrites of what's currently there) in the next few days. The others effectively need to go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In light of this discussion, I've made an attempt to merge the strongly similar "technical" and "progressive" death metal subsections. Why they were ever seperated, after a good read through, it's highly questionable. Logical Defense (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning, in my opinion, the notion that some bands hybridize death metal with numerous other metal/**** subgenres, not just in "death n roll"... acid bath, soilent green, sepultura/soulfly/cavelera-conspiracy. 128.59.34.156 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Favourite Band

What is policy round here regarding which bands should be included as examples within the subgenre sections. I'm specifically referring to the inclusion of a band like Between The Buried And Me. I'd deleted on grounds of notability and it has been re-added, admittedly with a citation to demonstrate that they do indeed play some form of progressive death metal. However, the rest of the section is talking about bands of a calibre like Pestilence, Gorguts, Atheist, Edge of Sanity, Opeth and the like. This is not meant as a subjective statement... their notability is reflected by their inclusion in books like 'Choosing Death' by Albert Mudrian and prominent placings in things like the Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance magazines death metal specials, and Terrorizer's retrospectives of the 80s and 90s. My feeling therefore is that bands like BTBAM lack notability, and in order to justify their inclusion a source should be provided not to confirm their genre but to explain why they are notable. As such, I'm deleting them again, until someone can provide such a source (and will do so with other bands of this nature). However, feel free to discuss it with me here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for whovever just added The Fatal Effect ;-).Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I re-added BTBAM. Not because I like them, but because they have been there. Remove the Fatal Effect. Keep it the way it has been for awhile. We have the bands down, no need to add more.--Wick3dd (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Slam Death

It should be slimmed down and a few sentences should just be added to Brutal Death. Inhumer (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, can we have a legitimate source to justify its inclusion at all? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No. (...) (lol) Logical Defense (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, surely this is just modernised brutal death metal. Too many sub-genres on here.Robotiq (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but it must be mentioned somehow because there are a lot of festivals just based on brutal death/slam --84.74.144.72 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a source, or it's not getting added. Period. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have that article from Decibel from a few months back?Inhumer (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

technical and progressive death metal

I've noticed someone combined technical and progressive death metal. I totally agree as these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and the genres have a big deal of traits that overlap (and we have no sources). However, I am concerned readers will think the 2 genres are completely synonymous, and that isn't 100% correct (some DM bands are never called technical (Opeth comes to mind), while others are never referred to as progressive (Origin/Cryptopsy)). I adjusted the prose to feature both genres, without making a clear distinction between the two. Please review the following rewrite I did. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical death metal and progressive death metal are related terms to refer to bands that are particularly distinguished by the complexity of their music and the virtuosity of their musicians. Common traits are abruptly changing, sometimes chaotic song structures, uncommon time signatures, atypical rhythms and unusual harmonies and melodies. Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz and/or classical music. While the term technical death metal is sometimes used to describe bands that not only focus on complexity but also on speed and extremity, the line between progressive and technical death metal is thin. "Tech death" and "prog death", for short, are terms commonly applied to such bands as Cryptopsy, Edge of Sanity, Opeth, Origin and Sadist. Cynic, Atheist, Pestilence and Gorguts are examples of a bands noted for creating jazz-influenced death metal. Necrophagist and Spawn of Possession are known for a classical music influenced death metal style.

I like it. But like you stated, the terms are not always interchangeable, and though you mention this slightly, I think there should be a little more (like a sentence) about how they are not always the same. You could even mention what you just said before about Opeth and Cryptopsy. Otherwise, It's great. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will copy it to the article. If you want to change it, go ahead. Kameejl ^(Talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For what my input is worth, I think the rewrite for that section is great and should be left as is for a while. Logical Defense (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are differences between Technical Death Metal and Progressive Death Metal. I think it is not correct to combine them in one title. Every technical Death Metal band is not progressive at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enslaved (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Early black metal infl.

We already had this discussion, which was started by me, and we all agreed that death metal was influenced by early black metal. I still agree with the assessment. However, not that it needs changing, I should point out one thing. Death metal was indeed influenced greatl;y by early black metal, but not all early black metal bands. In fact, only a few, I would say, influenced the death metal genre. Bands such as Mercyful Fate probabaly had little to no influence on death metal. The only bands that really had an impact on the dm genre were probabaly Venom, Celtic Frost, perhaps Hellhammer and I doubt whether Bathory had an influence or not. Just thought this was worth pointing out. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should all BM bands need to be an influence? Not all thrash bands where an influence. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I know, I was just saying. I guess it was kind of unnecessary to say. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but I think the problem is that at the time we're talking about black metal, death metal and thrash metal were not in fact delineated in the way that they are now. Finding references for this should be trivial and may be a useful way of getting round what are fairly nitpicking points. Are Hellhammer black metal? Death? Thrash? I hope you see where I'm coming from. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I get you. Definitely. I guess I just said it for the hell of saying it, but yeah, there's no reason to put it in the article, it would just cause more problems. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK

BTW, back then those bands were not widely known as black metal (I even remember reading an interview where Quorton said he thought his band was death metal, just because the term death sounded better). Just like I said before (and now is stated in the article), back then around 1984, there were only a few bands playing extreme metal and this "pool" inspired musicians to create death metal. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep early Tiamat out from this!

Tiamat were black metal NOT pure Sacandinsavian death metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.155.119 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a moron. Listen to Sumerian Cry, The Astral Sleep and the Treblinka demos. All are clearly death metal in the Scandinavian vein, similar to early Edge of Sanity. If you still disagree, I'd advise you to get your ears/head examined. 205.174.170.153 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That band is officially marked as a black metal band. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.197 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Although early Tiamat lyrics indeed delt with "satanic" and occultist lyrics, this doesn't mean they're black metal. And sound-wise, I agree with the first amonymous post. There's a definte scandinavian/Entombed vibe going on in Sumerian Cry. Furthermore, it was recorded on Sunlight Studios (note the "buzzsaw" guitar tone?) and Johan Endlund was definately associated early on with the people that were to become Dismember, Entombed and Unleashed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Metal/ Death Metal, it was all pretty interlinked back thenRobotiq (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

There is one thing. It is black colour for infobox. It isn't very important, but I think most of people would agree, that it looks much more apposite. Why? Heavy Metal includes bands such as Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix and Sepultura or Mayhem. These bands are musically pretty really very different, so these subgenres should have another colour. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours as black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres". It is 100% allowed to do it. But some people (unlogged) just have a problem with it and delete it unreasonably as a POV making pure edit war, what is POV by itself. So I would collect some people that want black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres", which would help to keep it...--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only natural to allow extreme metal to have black for the infobox color. What other genre(s) could allow it? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am leaving it. There are too many stubborn bungholes and big bloodthirsty edit-warriors. Typical metalheads... But why is their problem with black?--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe they're upset with the association to black metal? Maybe they'd rather keep it red like blood? No idea. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Including number of death metal bands in page via MA data

On the verification issue, every band page I've seen on MA has an external link to one of four sites: the band's official site, the band's MEEEspace site, the band's page on something like Rock Detector or the band's page on their record company's(/ies') website. The fact that they exist is verifiable, and in the case of bands who's record label site is included on the archive, it is also verifiable that they play metal or played metal. So...what exactly is it that isn't verifiable here? As far as genre goes, Encyclopaedia Metallum is basically a data collector of already verified genre information. I see no reason not to use the site as a source for something this simple. 128.255.179.241 Ours18 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with MA is that anyone can put any information they want on there - although the editors claim they gatekeep, the fact is that band information is almost never verified (if it sounds plausible). In no way is MA "basically a data collector of already verified genre information", since anyone can start a page for a band and write whatever they feel is appropriate to describe the band. I myself have started several pages, and contributed to several pages. Best, A Sniper 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...except if no information that the band exists is provided, then the submission is rejected either outright or later deleted. There's an entire thread devoted to bands which should have never been submitted, mostly bands which are borderline metal but also some which managed to slip through the cracks due to lax rules in the first year the website was founded. Read it, they're very strict about this. Much stricter than Uncle Wiki, I might add....there's no moderator approval for creating an article here, last time I checked. Ours18 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that MA articles are moderator approved does not established anything as it is still just a self published source (see WP:SPS). They may well claim to be authorities on metal and metal genres but that's irrelevant unless it is published in an independent, relibale, commercially published source. MA does not fulfill these criteria. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MA is just not reliable for this piece of information. Besides what would it matter? You say it establishes popularity. Does it? If a person comes to this page and sees that x number of bands of this genre exist, is it going to matter? I'm sure most people don't even know how many bands exist in other genres like pop, so it doesn't establish popularity at all. Even if you said a million death metal bands exist, does that mean death metal is popular? For all we know there could be 100 million pop bands, which would make death metal very unpopular actually. So numbers like that don't matter. Besides popularity is perspectival anyways. Not to mention there's a section in the infobox saying what kind of mainstream popularity the genre has. No amount of info you're going to get from any site will prove that or disprove it. Knowing how many bands exist in a genre is purely inane. Unless, perhaps you want to go and find a site that lists ALL genres and how many bands exist in EACH of those genres. In that way there would be some comparison/ perspective. Oh and then you would also have to go and put that information down in each genre's article, cuz if you only put it in a few, what would we have it to compar it to? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct regarding the numbers of bands listed on MA being a measure of popularity for the reasons you have stated. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Blizzard Beast - it isn't just MA itself but simply the lack of need for the information. I also don't agree with your MA vs. Wiki stance: at MA, as I've already stated above, anyone can add any bit of information, as long as it is within the guidelines of the site. However, here you have active editors who challenge each other for accuracy and relevance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...and as I have stated numerous times on Wikipedia, that is simply not true. To begin with, until you get to a cetain number of points (which takes most people forever to get to) all edits must be approved by an admin. Secondly, even if you get that many points, the mods there are far more active in finding incorrect information than Uncle Wiki is. Also, there are sections of the boards in which people link pages with errors so that mods can find them easier. It's considerably more difficult to put false information there than it is here, where we have an utterly stupid policy of letting anons with no account edit almost anything. Having to go through the trouble of creating and activating an account does more to keep vandals off than most people realize.

And where does the moderators' authority come from? Who decides what is incorrect information? People with a certain number of points? That's laughable. Whilst Wikipedia is deeply, deeply flawed, it at least has the ultimate recourse to reliable sources. MA only recourse is to its self-appointed mods. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel it also must be mentioned that they don't pussyfoot around vandals like they do here. Here, a vandal can do nothing but ruin articles for six months and he won't get a permanent ban; if you try it once at MA, you're gone, done, banned, "dursted." No 24-hour blocks, no two-week blocks, no one year blocks. Just banned. They have much higher standards than this place does.

On this I am in total agreement with you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That being said, if the consensus is that the information is not relevant enough for the article, then I suppose it shouldn't be in the article. I'll leave the issue alone from now on. Ours18 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It just isn't relevant or reliable information. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Huge problem

The progressive death metal and technical death metal were moved into one section together as one thing and now I just noticed they have their own sections again. Progressive death metal doesn't even have an article, but technical death metal does (that article needs a lot of work, too) where is described as also progressive death metal. What's up with this change? This is a problem! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It sure is... maybe a mention of progressive death metal and it's difference to technical death metal could be found somewhere (like in one of Sharpe-Young's books about genres and the bands within them or the history of heavy metal, or that death metal/grindcore book: Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore and that one on the dm scene especially (Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture) because I keep thinking there is a distinct difference between the two. Listen to uhh..., Sun Caged or Coroner they have plenty of jazz fusion riffs in their music (although they are just technical metal not tech death) and then Circus Maximus or Pagan's Mind and you'll understand the difference that I'm talking about. Sadly, if we can't find any refs for progressive death then it should stay as a combination again. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know there's a difference between technical and progressive metal, though it is a fine line (and usually both genres are progressive and technical), but idk about prog death and tech death. But yes, I believe those two sections should probably be combined as Kameejl once did, I believe. It doesn't seem what I'm saying is getting a lot of attention, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although metal purists know/think there is a difference, the term is used interchangeably by the press. F.e. Death, Atheist and Cynic have been labeled both prog and tech. I couldn't name a technical dm band that has no progressive elements and, to play progressive music you need a fair amount of technique. Both sub-genres are so close to each other, even the section's content was practically identical. It's best to have both genres combined, until good sources, distinguishing the two, can be provided. I've searched through a couple of books on (death) metal, without any succes.

By the way, the combined section is addressing this dispute, readers are not misled. I've reverted this section split. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks, and a good example of being bold. I don't know who changed it back to the split sections in the first place but they belong in the same section as Kameejl made it. And yes, it addresses the dispute, even better! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there is a difference between the two but as someone already said they're used interchangeably by the press.

72.138.107.30 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

single-purpose account Jackmantas

This user has been trolling around after me, and in the process has made some disturbing edits to the Chuck Schuldiner article and talk page. The most startling is a long paragraph on the talk page that attacks the relevance of Chuck (and in a previous edit the relevance of death metal itself) and personal attacks, innuendo and ridicule. I fear this editor will continue the trolling and hit this article, as he/she seems bent on messing with any article I lightly or regularly contribute to. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. A Sniper (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of death metal bands

I think some kind of comment on the popularity of death metal relative to other metal genres is totally appropriate to the article, but the last comment about it added is a bit problematic. Firstly, I'm not sure Metal Archives is a great or appropriate source for the comment as currently phrased, but regardless at the moment it's basically OR (Metal Archives themselves make no comment on the phenomenon, and the numbers simply reflect what's been added to the site). Perhaps a way round it would be to simply state, "Metal Archives lists x death metal bands out of a total of y", with the same source and no other comment? Thoughts? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Blackmetalbaz and that a qualifying statement re: MA would make it more encyclopedic. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see why it matters at all. Stating a number of bands just seems a little ridiculous. Popularity is always going to be up to the person pretty much. It's all perspective. You might live in a city where everyone listens to death metal, but that doesn't suddenly make it popular or mainstream. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion awhile back and agree that we WOULDN'T use the Metal Archives information because it is irrelevant? If the consensus is to have it, it must be qualified by noting it is from MA - but I would also ask WHY? My vote is not to include it. A Sniper (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did and I agree with you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Job For A Cowboy so famous?

Can somebody answer this? They're not that great. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I wans't aware they were "famous." But they do suck, at least in my opinion (and many others). However, they are not even death metal, so why bring it to this page? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems I'm mistaken. I looked at their article and it mentioned that they changed their style from deathcore to death metal. I didn't believe it, even after reading the sources until I just saw a vid by them (a rather gay metalcore-looking type vid). They have changed. And they are now death metal. They still suck, though. I listened to it and it was standard death metal, but extremely boring. The one good thing about their new album (on which they turned death metal) is that it might bring their deathcore fans to listen to some new, better shit. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have given them too much credit. Their new album got to like #54 on the Billboard 200 charts - some AMG guy was comparing them to Damageplan by saying "JFAC is one of the highest-charting debut albums from a heavy metal act since Slipknot's 1999 debut." Fame doesn't nessicarily equal high charting, I was just wondering why so many teenage kids like that band. On a better note, Children of Bodom's Blooddrunk has recently cracked the Top 30, as seen in the latest issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time, and I hate to say it, AMG has no idea what they're f---ing talking about. Especially with metal. They still lump black and death in the same content description if you look. Pathetic. RexDeath (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia isn't about what is true, or what you or I think; it is about what can be referenced. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But references can be debunked as a reliable source or specifically a reliable source for something such as Sputnik Music's staff reviews can only be used and its article got deleted. Sites can be reviewed to see if they can be used as a reference like Allmusic can. For example, Allmusic labels Opeth symphonic black metal... when they obviously are not and would seriously misinform readers. The site needs to be competent enough and Allmusic doesn't show it for most metal band pages. So the only reliable content Allmusic offers is most of the biographies and more mainstream genres like rock, rap, punk, pop and country... etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Death By Metal

Was by Mantas, the band that would become Death. I woun't won't change it because of the source though.Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doom Metal

Doom metal is another genre influence. Death metal has down tuned guitars and slow passages, too. and the allmusic says that Death metal owes as much to thrash metal than to black sabbath (they choose black sabbath apparently to represent doom metal) If you won't accept that, could I at least ad black sabbath as an influence?

Black Sabbath are no more an influence on death metal specifically than they are on other most other metal genres. They're one of the single biggest influences on heavy metal, but I don't see any direct connection between Sabbath and death metal. Besides which, allmusic is a useless excuse for a reliable source on metal anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right... There aren't many reliable sources out there anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Nocturnus

Noticed that there's no mention of Nocturnus' contribution to the rise in popularity of electronic keyboards in extreme metal. Think its worth mentioning somewhere in the early history section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.42.68 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I think Nocturnus started using them on the 'Science of Horror' demo (1988), but if you only count official releases, Pestilence were earlier, on 'Consuming Impulse' (1989) - Nocturnus's 1st album was not released until 1990.Robotiq (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian death metal

Was added to the subgenre section. I don't think it's accurate to mention it in that section because a) the "subgenre" is based on lyrical content, which is not a strong bases for a death metal subgenre. There are no genres called pagan death metal, viking death metal, satanic death metal etc.. Any (subsubsubsub)genre can be Christian-themed. b) Only few bands fit the description and the term christian death metal is not used a lot by the press to describe bands. c) It better fits the christian metal article and is described there in detail.

Although the term is not used often and althought it's more of a christian metal subgenre than a DM subgenre, it might be interesting to touch on it's existence. Maybe it's better to add a few lines on it in the Other fusion subgenres section (as it is a christian metal/DM hybrid). Any opinions? Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The genre "Unblack" is even more viable as a genre since it goes against the basis of what black metal is and its strong use of Satanism-based lyrics. There's no term yet for an "Undeath" for the expected Christian-themed death metal. I think it could use a mention in the lyrics section too that some bands cover more Christian-themed lyrics than they do criticism of religion, Satanism, gore and other philosophies. It could go like: ".....but may also extend to contain themes of Satanism, criticism of religion, Occultism, mysticism, and/or social commentary, while a few bands may use Christian themes." or something like that. Then we can have a sentence or two like you said in the fusion section as like a parallel of the "black" version. I know that Becoming the Archetype are big on this but I can't think of others right now that do the same. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayer

There have been a couple of attempts to insert Slayer into the lede as an example of a pioneering death metal band. The latest had three references. After going through all three, I verified what I had believed: Slayer were influencial on the pioneering death metal bands but were not themselves death metal pioneers. I pointed out in my last edit summary that Slayer are mentioned later in the article as an important influence, as they were. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. However, if you talk about reliable sources, Metal Observer (the source of Possessed) is an amatorial site. --Born Again 83 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, amatorial - yeah, of course. In any event, I changed the reference for Possessed in the lede to a citation from allmusic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dethklok?

Shouldn't Dethklok be inserted into this article somewhere to highlight satire of death metal? Doshindude (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could add something on them though... and to add to this, I was thinking about adding an "In popular culture" section towards the end of the article myself. Some examples would be of course the animated tv show Metalocalypse (which glorifies death metal and has many references to heavy metal bands) and Dethklok a virtual band who are basically melodic death metal (yes they have melodic riffs and support the description very well) . Only the media would label them plain old death metal since they are unaware of its subgenres. Also, in movies including Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when Cannibal Corpse appears onstage (a favorite of Jim Carrey) as well as School of Rock where a sticker of their logo appears. I'm sure that many horror movies would include brief songs. And ever so slightly (not exactly death metal), Ozzy Osbourne's son blasted some Meshuggah at his neighbor for some reason. I'm blank on any other cultural references but anyway we might be able to mention something about Dethklok. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MANTAS is in fact older than POSSESSED

Mantas (formed in 1983) released a demo in 1983 under the name of DEATH BY METAL (http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=101903). Mantas has always played the same music (What we consider now death metal)from their beginnings until their break up. Possessed (also formed in 1983) released their first demo back in 1984 under the name Death Metal (http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=21654) One year after Mantas'first demo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.0.152 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'early history' section needs a complete re-write. It focuses too much on the 'big names' of the scene. We shouldn't forget that bands like Terminal Death and Master recorded death metal in 1985. Also, Mutilator (Bra) gets no mention as far as I can see. Their 'Grave Desecration' demo (1985) is possibly the first *pure* death metal recording (you can listen to it on youtube). Necrovore and Autopsy also released pure death metal demos in 1987.Robotiq (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. However, Wikipedia isn't necessarily about what is fact but what is verifiable - so if you need to re-write anything (which will need consensus) it will need sources. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Always difficult because Death Metal has such a huge informal history. There are nevertheless a couple of books on the subject, such as the 'Swedish Death Metal' book that was released last year. I dunno if CD inlays and the like could count as references, such as the inlay to retrospective CDs like Napalm Death's 'Leaders not Followers'. If I get around to re-writing some of this I'll bear it in mind.Robotiq (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Choosing obscurity

In the lead paragraph: "...in part because it does not appeal to mainstream tastes due to its aggressive nature and because the musicians often choose to remain obscure". Really? I don't associate intentional obscurity with the death metal scene. With black metal, yes, but I don't see death metal bands intentionally hiding themselves. Aryder779 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Aryder779 - it also seems to be an opinionated and speculative statement, and not based on sourced fact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aryder779. In general extreme metal tends to be more underground but strictly remaining obscure? I don't think so. Black metal is the most obscure and sometimes drone doom and funeral doom as well when the band members cloak themselves, hide their identities with stage names or additionally in black metal's case (wear corpse paint), are sworn not to play live and stay on lesser known independent labels or their own. Obviously this is not for all but most. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. It rather forgets how big bands like Obituary were around the early 1990s. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deathgrind

Why was the page on deathgrind deleted? It make sense to have it up, considering we have sub-subgenres such as ****ogrind and goregrind still up. Perhaps we could put it back up? CheesePiggy (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The goregrind and ****ogrind pages should almost certainly be deleted or merged into the grindcore article, on the basis of notability (or lack thereof). There are basically no reliable sources in either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to take that back about the goregrind page... I hadn't looked at it properly for a while. The ****ogrind page however lacks even a single reference (I removed the solitary Blogspot one for what I hope are obvious reasons). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Shrinker

If anyone wants to contribute to the debate of whether or not to delete the Dr. Shrinker article, please check here Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deathgrind and goregrind

There are at least three separate sources that consider deathgrind and goregrind to be separate subgenres; the first is Danny Lilker writing in the liner notes to the Grind Your Mind grindcore compilation (I copied the specific part to here. I also cited Zero Tolerance here... two sentences later in the same paragraph, it reads "Related genres [to goregrind] are deathgrind, which sees grindcore and brutal death metal colliding head on (Brodequin, Dead Infection, Pigsty, Alienation Mental), and ****ogrind, the most downright perverted of the lot, often adding a dollop of filthy groove and vocals straight from the toilet (Gut, CBT)." That's Issue 004, p. 46 for reference. Issue #150 of Terrorizer discusses death/grind explicitly as part of its "death metal special" run of issues, and goregrind explicitly in #181 within its "grindcore special". There is no indication that they are talking about the same bands... whilst the first talks to the likes of Mortician, the latter is focussing on Carcass and their soundalikes. I'd have to dig out #150 if you want specific quotes, but the above should be enough to suggest that parsing deathgrind and goregrind in this article is incorrect. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: I really, really disliked what you did on their section. You've put too much emphasis on the differences, cited controversial distinctions (rock-like pornogrind, which is disagreed on other sources) and attributed traits to singular genres that can be found on others ("speed-soaked fury" Deathgrind can be fast like Goregrind and Pornogrind's "vocals straight from the toilet" similar to extremely low Goregrind's vocals). Joint sections should only cite concensual attributes, whicch in this case are only the imagery and lyrical content. ABC paulista (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s really one sentence. The sources say they’re some differences, you need to add those differences. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. ~SML • TP 20:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the differences are covering more the subsection than the similarities, which should not happen and is aggravated by the fact that those differences are controversial. Natalie Purcell, on the book "Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture", state that the only distinguishable trait of Pornogrind is its lyrical focus. And Goregrind is not the only one cited as very fast and with low-pitched vocals, since according to Paul Schwarz of Terrorizer magazine Deathgrind is also very fast, and according to Zero Tolerance magazine Pornogrind also use low-pitched vocals. So, as you say, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and also WP:CONCISE. ABC paulista (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

These subgenres are different. Pornogrind and goregrind have they’re own sound. And I don’t think they are at all controversial. The book source you mentioned is just one source that’s wrong, there are others. The type of vocals they use and speed of them are more or less the same (pornogrind is slower). But the sources say there are differences, so you need to stick to the sources. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not right. ~SML • TP 21:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want, because as long as there is some reliable source that disagrees with what's being stated, the statement becomes controversial per WP:BALANCED and WP:IMPARTIAL, period. We don't go with what's right or wrong, but which is reliable and which is not, and you don't have the right or power to decide which is right, wrong, reliable or not, sou your opinions about the sources are irrelevant here since these sources were accepted before and they all pass WP:RS. Also, the other sources presented on their articles don't fully agree on the other assertions aside from the thematics, and citing them while omitting the others goes against WP:NPOV, which is very severe, but citing all of them here goes against WP:CONCISE. That's why they have their own article: To cite the many facets and interpretations that these sounds can have, without convoluting other articles, so these kind of info are unwelcomed here. Only because a source cite something, that doesn't mean that it must be cited everywhere. It's an user's job to evaluate the pertinence and WP:WEIGHT of said info whitin the article's scope and context. ABC paulista (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You think I don’t know I don’t have the power to do that? I know my opinion doesn’t matter anywhere, neither does yours. But I’d be happy if the sentence said that those are the main characteristics, making it present that some sources say there are different characteristics. ~SML • TP 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Not here, they have their own articles for that. We must be WP:CONCISE, so cite only the main, undisputed info. The Natalie Purcell, Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance sources all challenge your reasoning and sourced info's ones, so no pass. ABC paulista (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Brutal death metal

Has been deleted per AfD. No sources have been produced for its existence (Metal Archives? Give me a break. Why does no-one read WP:RS?) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I also point out that the source currently being provided is not a reliable source either. I'm not getting into a 3RR situation, though it looks like another user is. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Words such as melodic, brutal, satanic, epic, awesome and great are all adjectives. People use adjectives to describe things. The difference between melodic death metal and brutal death metal is that there are reliable sources that explictly identify melodic death metal as a legitimate subgenre, not merely a description of some death metal music. For instance, this recent article on the Sydney Morning Herald, a mainstream news publication, states that "death metal has its own sub-genres - technical death metal, melodic death metal, blackened death metal, deathgrind and deathcore." One would think that if brutal death metal is indeed a legitimate subgenre, it would have been mentioned in the same line. An interviewee in that article even states that "death metal is brutal", which would make the concept of a brutal death metal subgenre rather redundant. I have not been able to find any reliable source that explicitly recognizes brutal death metal as a subgenre. I have only been able to find any reliable sources that use the term brutal as a description, just like other adjectives such as satanic, epic, awesome and great. If anyone knows of a reliable source that explicitly recognizes brutal death metal as a legitimate subgenre, please tell us about it. --Bardin (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity y'all don't read my blog, which will prove to be a decisive reference for the genre of mies metal. It's rugged. Seriously, this has to stop. Metal Archives is not a reliable source, and if there isn't anything else, there simply isn't anything. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that brutal death metal doesn't exist? Conservoman (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Brutal death metal is absolutely a distinct subgenre. And Encyclopaedia Metallum is definitely a reliable source--certainly more so when it comes to metal than Wikipedia is. It is also quintessentially absurd to say that because some article that (a) is from a mainstream publication (i.e., a publication with no particular expertise vis-a-vis death metal) and (b) does not purport to provide an exhaustive list of death-metal subgenres, does provide an exhaustive list of death metal subgenres. We may wish that all death metal were brutal, but much of it is not. Suffocation, Incantation, and similar bands are much heavier than, say, Asphyx or Pestilence. The former populate the subgenre of "brutal death metal." Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal and Albert Mudrian's Choosing Death both repeatedly refer to "brutal death metal" as a distinct subgenre. Those are two of the most well-regarded books about death metal, and unquestionably are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been deleted so any content related to it can also be deleted. See: WP:CON. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was no mention of brutal death metal in the main body of this article. I believe that it must be mentioned on here, aside from in the infobox. It is indeed a notable subgenre of death metal, and Encyclopaedia Metallum is not needed to prove that. Brutal death metal is a very fast and heavy form of death metal typically consisting of, but not limited to, songs ranging from 2 to 4 minutes. That's a basic definition of what brutal death metal is. After this editing ban is lifted from the article, I would recommend that brutal death metal have its own section on here, now that it doesn't have its own article anymore. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am rather amazed that there are people running around claiming that there is no such subgenre as "brutal death metal". I haven't a hell of a lot of research on who is and is not using the term, but I listen to a great deal of metal - particularly death metal - and it is completely unbelievable to me that anyone would the existence of brutal death metal. More later. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be reopened for discussion. This would be one of those instances where professional original research is required. Mainstream publications don't know anything about anything that is not mainstream. You're not going to find a "reliable" source for this information. However, ask anyone who has listened to extreme metal for more than a year and 99% of them will tell you this is a distinct subgenre. Anathematized one (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, the article on Brutal Death Metal was deleted per AfD for lack of bona fide resources. This meant that references to this were deleted from this article. Apart from that, there really isn't any point including it if there are no mainstream sources to support its existence. A Sniper (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

On this version of wikipedia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutal_death_metal , there is a Brutal death metal article that has been sourced, can it not be translated and used? If it existes in one language surly it exists in english as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Learn-About-Brutal-Death-Metal/lm/R2YSFK4D3BE2H4 --- also includes Brutal death. I'll look futher when I have time but surely this genre's existence has to acknowleged. No 'mainstream' sources... jeez I wonder why it could possibly be difficut to find mainstream sources for brutal death metal... 124.180.139.239 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Brutal death metal has been used as a term well before MA. If brutal death metal doesn't exist as it's own subgenre, neither does technical death metal. A few "mainstream sources" supporting the latter doesn't make it more of a subgenre. It's obvious that technical death metal is far more popular (it's the only death metal that hipsters listen to, for example}. AMG rarely reviews actual brutal death metal, so its no surprise that the term isn't given much recognition there (but I did find this, which mentions brutal death metal as a subgenre. Some more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Some may only have brutal used as an adjective, but not all). Here are a few from another apparently "reliable" source - 1, 2, 3, and 4. You can also bet that recognized "extreme metal" magazines such as Decibel, Terrorizer and even more mainstream ones like Revolver and Metal Hammer have used the term. Not the best example, but this Decibel article makes mention of it. Here are a couple from Revolver 1 and 2. Hell, there's a mention of on this from the NY Times. Brc2000 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

deathcore not really a part of death metal

the thing with deathcore is it's really metalcore taking bits of death metal and just adding death in front of core like they do with alot of genres. real deathcore is not really consider a sub-genre of death metal because all deathcore did was change the way metalcore singers sang. so instead of screams like metalcore bands they do growls. it is still metalcore in every way musically (writing in majors, lots of breakdowns, etc). there are a few bands that are labeled deathcore but is really just death metal but they label themselfs as deathcore. so that can be why there is a confusion about this genre. this genre is not accepted by most people and musicians as a sub-genre of death metal as it is stated in lots of articles (guitarworld, revolver, and countless magazines and artist interviews. also metalcore was not incorporated in to death metal it was the other way around. also melodic riffs are part of melodic death metal and has become one of the most popular genre of death metal. so if that part is to be kept it should say -

Deathcore: With the rise in popularity of metalcore, some bands have incorporated death metal in to their music. Bands such as Suicide Silence, Salt the Wound and early music from Job for a Cowboy combine metalcore with death metal influences. Characteristics of death metal, such as fast drumming (including blast beats), down-tuned guitars, tremolo picking, melodic riffs and partially growled vocals, are combined with breakdowns.

however the part about characteristics are still wrong as death metal bands were the first to use breakdowns but is now mainly used by "core" bands. this should be moved to the metalcore part of wiki and the death metal section of this should be completely rewritten as very little of it is true. also if you listen to a real deathcore band you will realize that it has nothing to do with death metal. bands like whitechapel, sucide silence, and so on are 100% metalcore youtube born Of osiris and other bands like that and you will understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retardsrwe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You realise that that is all WP:OR and WP:POV, right? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also a widely accepted WP:OR and WP:POV. We're talking about extreme metal here, probably the absolute farthest from the mainstream you can get. You won't find any real "credible" sources on such things. Hell half of all the facts about different genres of metal on this site are completely uncited as it is, yet nobody takes those down as being WP:OR/WP:POV - they're just widely accepted facts. In fact, anyone deleting material and dismissing claims like this one is committing WP:OR/WP:POV. You know what we do in situations such as this? Add special wording that "It is widely accepted common knowledge that..." I've seen many statements on this website that are preceded as such and have absolutely no cited references. Anathematized one (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally and utterly wrong. We should never write things like "It is widely accepted common knowledge that", precisely because of core Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Finding reliable sorces for extreme metal articles is, it turns out, not in the slightest bit difficult, owing to the number of metal print sources such as books and magazines devoted to it and its various subgenres. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Amen. A Sniper (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Source

Came across a potentially useful source here. What do other people reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch death metal

Does anyone else think that Netherlands should be listed in the regional scenes? - Matt 00:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.240.238 (talk)

IP edits

There's been a significant number of IPs coming into the article to revert, usually without edit summary, the removal of "brutal death metal" from the article no matter how flawed the section is. There may be an argument for the existence of BDM, but the definition for it is not very clear and, in its current pre-revision state, is contradictory. Suggest a semi-protection?--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Why do you people not bother to read other articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Forces states, and it is cited, that the Metal Force zine was, contrary to what you may have otherwise heard, the origin of the term death metal and thrash metal. Yet you do not mention this on the death metal article. This would be ok if it was from some off-site link, but it is mentioned on another WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. One article says one thing, the other article doesn't mention it. FIX IT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.13.52 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First things first, read WP:CIVIL. I suspect the reason for not including this bit of information is that its source is Dave Reynolds, a writer for Metal Forces at the time concerned and therefore clearly not a reliable source. It may be worth adding a sentence mentioning his claim, but in reality what should probably happen is that the claim in the Metal Forces article should be qualified. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The term death metal come from the band death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezerfan1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Possessed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.240.238 (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to let 92.16.13.52 know, you cannot use another wikipedia article as a source. Yes, you can use a source (if its reliable) from another wiki article as a source in other wiki articles, which I think was what you were trying to suggest anyways, but the way you worded it may it sound like just because something was on another wiki article could mean it could be cited into another wiki article. Which is against the rules. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Death Rap

Somebody needs to add Death Rap as a fusion genre on the page for death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezerfan1 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, you invented the genre "death rap," because the article was created by you and with no references, which is equal to original research.--Cannibaloki 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you source that article. It looks like a very real candidate for a PROD.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Themes

I have removed "Z-grade" from the description of the lyrical themes of death metal. While some death metal has lyrics that involve slasher film violence, to call it "Z-grade" seems derogatory and adds nothing to the description. It's better to just say "Death metal's lyrical themes often invoke slasher and splatter movie violence." Mason092 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessed (band) location and influence were incorrect.

Although many "reliable sources" claim this band is from San Francisco, this claim is not correct. Various interviews from current/former Possessed members point to the band being from the cities of El Sobrante, San Pablo, Pinole, Richmond or El Cerrito, which are 20-40 minutes away from the actual city limits of SF. (Most likely the journalist or researcher was referring to "San Francisco Bay Area", as the journalist is obviously not familiar with the area.) Second, the Slayer influence on Possessed is incorrect and an obvious anachronism. Possessed formed in 82/83 and began writing songs at that time, whereas Slayer's first album "Show No Mercy" wasn't released until late 1983 (and I'd imagine it would take a year or so for the "buzz" to get out - they were still a young band back then.) Band interviews are the best indicator of a band's musical influences, and I've yet to find any Possessed interviews where anyone cites Slayer. The Allmusic source directs to an album reviewer who believes the Possessed album Seven Churches has a Slayer influence, that's it. Not a fact, only an opinion ... so fixed. --Danteferno (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording and sources

A couple of things I'd like to note. Metal Archives is used as a source in the article a couple of times. MA is all user-supplied content, hence not a reliable source and needs to be removed. The word "often" and other WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL words is used a lot in the article as well. Rather than overusing ambigious phrases, specifiy who said what exactly. I'll rewrite it myself, but thought I'd mention it here if someone has the time to do it before me. Nymf _talk/contr. 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required

A user is attempting to delete all the Death and Possessed demos on the premise that they are neither noteworthy or sourced. Can folks assist in finding sources that signify their importance? Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as with all demos, per WP:MUSIC they are not notable if they are not sourced to independent reliable sources. To the extent that we can write a reasonablyu detailed article, sourced to independent reliable sources, I'm all for keeping them. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as we're concerned with these particular demos and their historical importance - we interested in the genre who have been reading about them and listening to them for the last 25 years - it is of prime importance to add the references and keep the pages. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there's no "but" in your :"yes, but". I said we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you said, "Yes, but...it is of prime importance to add the references...". ? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can of course help out by adding references, since this appears to be a concern of yours. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have searched, to the best of my abilities, for in-depth coverage. I have found none. That is why I nominated it for deletion. The first Afd was unable to find substantial coverage. Prior to the second AfD I was unable to. No one in the second AfD could. The article was deleted, though there are clearly strong feelings to the contrary. When I saw that the article had been recreated without providing those needed sources, I could have gone for a speedy deletion. I opted to bring it up again due to the lack of concensous on the first AfD and the somewhat weak delete on the second. I still cannot find the substantial coverage in reliable sources you promise exists. No one else seems to be finding it either. Unless that coverage is found and added soon, this article is heading for a second deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Having followed the discussions at the various AfD pages, I will have to advise that it is impossible to sway Deletionists from their pre-ordained state of mind. There are different philosophies at play on Wikipedia, ranging from Inclusionism to Deletionism and various others in between. I see no evidence anywhere that Deletionism is meant to be the controlling philosophy that determines the rules for all of Wikipedia, but it is time to admit that they control these debates. It is obvious to people who know about heavy metal history that the demos in question are unquestionably influential and we know that from reading the literature our whole lives. But Deletionists are tough to sway and are convinced or their own infallibility. I suggest that information on the influence of demos in the metal field be added as historical items to each band's biographical article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, to the extent that they are discussed in reliable sources, that is welcome. To the extent that there is significant coverage in such sources, separtae articles are sometimes appropriate. That is the consensus. Those who gripe about "deletionism" are often merely unhappy with the consensus which states quite clearly that demos are generally not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

...and those who wish to delete those particular Death releases have yet to garner a clear consensus to do so. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The question really would be : if there is separate articles for the demos, will they bring more information or would they just repeat what's in the death metal article ? I'm all for leaving demos out, unless they have a strong significance as it it the case here. I cannot believe nobody never wrote anything about that. Black metal, for example, is fairly documented in books and movies. zubrowka74 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsens

Is it just me or is the sentence "the style is characterized by an extremely vocal guttural with lyrics sung in a slow following the guitar riffs and sudden weather changes" of the Brutal death metal section is total nonsens ? Sounds like the kind of phrasing produced by Babel fish... zubrowka74 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's absolute nonsense, though you might be right about Babel fish. The section in question was added by an IP out of Brazil. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I was just being a drama-queen. I picked-up the pattern because I'm not a native english speaker myself. But I still think that the rest of the paragraph was OK. With minor corrections it could be reinserted. zubrowka74 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If I was going for drama, I would suggest translating the text (via Babel fish) back into Portuguese, then using a different site to re-translate it. As it is, I guess we keep what we can make sense of and source, ditch the rest. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Soilent Green from the deathgrind mini list

Soilent Green has never been a deathgrind band and it isn't even listed in its article so I'm removing it from there. The band is refered to in a previous section, where it must be. Gothbag (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article lead lists them as sludge metal and grindcore while the infobox uses sludge and death metal. Death + grind = deathgrind was the probable logic behind this. These could use a cleanup as well. zubrowka74 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackened Death

Is that serious ? Someone deleted the section under the rationale that consensus was made that this sub-genre did not exist. Should it be reverted ? (my guess is yes, unless I missed something) zubrowka74 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor drumming technique

To the user(Scabrosus) who twice added the comment about poor drumming technique, your edit summary read, "I have noted that the drummers use poor drumming technique along with the fast beats. I can hear the differences because I play drums." That's pretty much the definition of WP:OR, which is exactly what I said when I reverted it the first time. Either find a source for your claim or don't add it again. << Fyrefly (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I don't remember adding it twice, and I did not know that original research was not allowed, seems stupid thou someone did originally do research on anything. Scabrosus (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry. Yes, you only put back the information that I reverted from a different user. I got mixed up. But yeah, original research shouldn't be included and I'll let the WP:OR speak for itself as to why that is. And sorry for my attitude earlier today. << Fyrefly (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Brutal Death Metal... again

I thought it was clear "brutal" death metal was not a valid sub-genre. It is a way or a style in which death metal can be played but it doesn't even have it's own page, just a redirect to the main page. I'm writing this here because the comment field didn't allow enough space when I did the revert. zubrowka74 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to debate this. I'll admit, I'm far too lazy to search out reliable sources on my own, but brutal death metal is a valid genre, and any person who's listened to heavy metal for more than three months can tell you this. Besides, wasn't there a foreign Wikipedia page on brutal death metal that was properly sourced? MutantClannfear (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This has had the hugest discussion of nearly all discussions I've ever seen on the four years I've been on this website. - We've left it at the consensus that it is technically not a real genre hence the fact that there are actually no sources at all to determine a "brutal death metal" genre, so don't waste your time searching for any. If there will ever be a Decible or Revolver article talking about "brutal death metal", then that will officially confirm it's a genre, otherwise, it isn't. • GunMetal Angel 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see what I've written in the other "brutal death metal" discussion earlier today. Mentions in AMG and MusicMight, as well as several other published sources. And if some effort is taken, a whole lot of other sources will probably be found (a lot of mentions in Blabbermouth and PopMatters, but unsure if it meets reliability standards here, though they have been used as sources elsewhere). If that's not enough to confirm it, then it's obvious that you all have your minds made up, and nothing short of a feature on CNN is going to change that. I hate modern brutal death metal (and most modern metal in general), but it exists, and it's not anywhere near as obscure as, say, US power metal, or "bestial" black metal (which also exist, but aren't notable enough to merit mention here). It doesn't even need to have it's own article, but not mentioning it here is laughable (not that anyone really uses Wikipedia as a serious source for metal anyway) Brc2000 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But finding reliable sources for underground metal genres simply isn't that hard! Print sources such as Decibel, Terrorizer, Zero Tolerance have all had specific articles dedicated to, say, goregrind, noisecore or drone doom. They're easily sourced. If a "subgenre" is sufficiently obscure or ill-defined that such sources can't be found, they're not verifiable. They may as well not exist. There are thousands of bands out there in a "genre of one", but oddly enough we don't document them all. I'm not suggesting that the things you're pushing are that out there, but certainly no notability has been established. I am somewhat confused by your suggestion that US power metal is obscure... although that maybe because the term's meaning has changed somewhat since the 80s. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What term has changed - "USPM" or "obscure"? USPM is less well understood as having its own defined sound than brutal death metal is, I mean. To most people, including seasoned metalheads, power metal is power metal.

At least now I know what you're looking for - articles about brutal death metal, rather than articles just mentioning its existence. A few probably exist somewhere, but I don't really read metal mags, or general music sources, so I'll have to leave to someone else Brc2000 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Although, I don't understand why "blackened death metal" gets the benefit of the doubt here. It obviously exists, but the sources used are a couple of reviews. Brc2000 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Brutal Death is a valid subgenre...just look on french version..WE'ARE IN 2013...we not supposed to argue about brutal death or slam.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.158.254 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand not calling it a subgenre, but not mentioning it at all? It's a style of death metal, so shouldn't it be mentioned for completion of information? If the goal of an encyclopedia is to be thorough in explaining a topic, something that typifies the style of hundreds of musicians should at least get a footnote. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Death metal is not typically "atonal"

The article described death metal as being characterized by minor key tonality and atonality. What it should be saying is not atonality, but chromaticism, because for the music to be atonal, the guitarists would have to carefully give equal value to each tone, which is highly unlikely and mostly used in orchestral settings. The use of all 12 tones in death metal music is a characteristic of chromaticism, as in, uses the chromatic scale. 144.162.76.185 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to "strict" atonality. I think "free" atonality is implied here. zubrowka74 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much bias/misleading bent towards Death/Chuck Schuldiner

I have no intention to start the umpteenth "Possessed or Death?" debate, but the article has way too much emphasis on Death and Chuck Schuldiner as being the "first death metal band/musician/godfather of death metal". There is one thing everyone can agree on, be it Wikipedia editor or professional music journalist: Death released way more albums than Possessed, was active longer than Possessed, and with that weight alone, was more influential on the death metal genre than Possessed. However, a Google Books search either suggests that the bands pioneered the genre together or that Possessed preceded Death as being the first death metal band. Besides Allmusic - which has always been sketchy with its claims - there's no indication Possessed was a "fast Slayer-influenced thrash metal" band. Just because a journalist thinks a band sounds like it has an influence from another band does not mean a band WAS influenced by other band. No interviews suggest that the band was influenced by Slayer on Seven Churches. Band interviews are key to what influences a band/musician.

In just a little bit, I plan on overhauling the "History" section of this article with more accurate information, but just thought I post this, first, for discussion. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll monitor your every edit because, unless you have bona fide secondary sources, you'll just get reverted. A new interview with Possessed frontman Jeff Becerra himself (found here: [6]) makes it very clear the importance of Schuldiner - that, despite Possessed coming first, the music Schuldiner created is more closely associated with what is considered death metal. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Deathcore edits

To be frank, I don't listen to any sort of metal...so I'm a bit out of my musical comfort zone here, but I have reverted all edits and restored the deathcore section of the article. After doing independent research, I have determined that it would appear as though deathcore is a valid subgenre that has a good following. Finding a citation or two for the section might prevent a repeat of the edit war that has been occurring. Food for thought. --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 01:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In the article for deathcore, there are many sources that say it's a subgenre of death metal or just simply an extreme metal genre… ect. So yes, it is a subgenre of DM, although the reason for its constant removal by IP is because it's technically a dirty word in the extreme metal community because traditional metalheads don't really have a thing for taking death metal and adding breakdowns to it or whatever so basically, people like him just can't handle the fact that it is a metal genre. Simple as that • GunMetal Angel 01:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Genre warriors make me smile. Thanks GunMetal. --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

-But death metal bands were using breakdowns before deathcore even existed. Suffocation, At The Gates, to name a few.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Brutal death metal (2)

Why brutal death metal there isn't in the list of death metal subgenres? --Der Künstler (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a sub-genre. It's a style of play, nothing more. zubrowka74 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to posting this question as a FAQ on the top of the talk page?--WaltCip (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical and progressive death metal are a style of play too. --Der Künstler (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tech and prog are both recognizable subgenres with reliable sourcing and recognizable traits. What's the difference between death metal and "brutal death metal"? None - it's redundant. Bands which are mistakenly referred to as brutal death metal, such as Nile or Dying Fetus, are actually technical in nature.--WaltCip (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that those bands aren't exactly representative of brutal death metal as a genre. I understand that brutal death metal has a rather amorphous definition due to common misuse, but like grindcore (which experiences the same fate when it is used to describe bands that almost certainly fit under metalcore or deathcore), it most certainly has meaning. Not all bands classified as brutal death metal are technical - Devourment is a good example, if you want a band that fulfills WP:Notability, but there are plenty of bands that are not as notable, yet still representative of the genre, such as Cephalotripsy, Vulvectomy, and Artery Eruption. One could argue that one notable band does not make a subgenre, but then you have ****ogrind, which is a perfectly valid subgenre of goregrind and only has two bands that play it that pass Wikipedia's notability test. Brutal death metal, as a genre, is starkly different from mere death metal - the genre generally does not use blast beats as much as normal death metal, the riffs operate around a distinct type of simpler, slower, palm-muted rhythmic sections commonly known within the brutal death metal scene as "slams", the vocals tend to be more guttural and absurd than typical death metal (the latter settles for a growl or a rasping, mid-pitched screech more often than not), and the lyrics generally take a much more over-the-top, gory approach than death metal (and is also much less likely to have the profane aesthetic that death metal bands like Possessed use) - if you're familiar enough with extreme metal to the point where Cannibal Corpse doesn't sound like "dogs barking over a bunch of noise", you'll be able to see quite clearly that all three of the bands I linked above feature all four of those traits.

And it's not a small genre carved out of half a dozen different groups; there are multiple other bands that fit under the subgenre as well - for a list of generally notable bands within the scene, you have Guttural Secrete (a good example of a band that is equally technical death metal and brutal death metal), Amputated, Dripping, Gorevent, Short Bus Pile Up, Cerebral Incubation, and Abominable Putridity. There is also a breed of brutal death metal sometimes known as "technical brutal death metal", which tends to reference bands like Prostitute Disfigurement, Origin, and yes, Nile and Dying Fetus. However, it is on that front of the term - not in terms of regular brutal death metal - that the label "brutal death metal" starts to get sketchy; that is where the term "brutal" loses definitive meaning as it starts getting applied to anything that typically sounds harsh in the metal world, and not bands that actually take influence from what is generally considered brutal death metal. In other words, the bands you mention are examples of when the term "brutal" starts being used as a general meaningless adjective instead of a taxonomic descriptor (not to mention that that is probably the reason that brutal death metal has been so openly shunned from Wikipedia before, due to the ambiguity of the term "brutal" that results from its most common use - that is to say, an adjective as meaningless as "good" or "fast" when used to classify music). The brutal death metal I am referring to, with its simplistic, primal style of playing and obscenely guttural (though not pitchshifted) vocals, is certainly not an amorphous term.

I wholly acknowledge that brutal death metal may not pass the notability standards, as references to it are scarce, but it is indeed a subgenre with a distinct sound and scene - and the fact that you immediately think of bands like Nile and Dying Fetus instead of Devourment when referring to the genre leads me to believe that you have little experience with it. 166.249.193.6 (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Bands which are mistakenly referred to as brutal death metal, such as Nile or Dying Fetus…" ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And that would have been a statement that I wholeheartedly agree with, had WaltCip then proceeded to provide Devourment as an example of a valid brutal death metal band. Given his belief that brutal death metal is not a genre, however, I believe he used the wording "mistakenly referred" to suggest that all bands called brutal death metal can easily be put under a different classification (which I disagree with, obviously, because using that same logic, you can argue that technical death metal is not a genre, because Cynic, Atheist, Death and dozens of other tech-death bands are all melodic, and can thus be classified under melodic death metal), not to imply that there are bands that are most accurately labeled under brutal death metal.

But this isn't about WaltCip's comment, it's about brutal death metal. I'm willing to accept the fact that there are not enough reliable sources to verify its existence, but I'd like to debate Wikipedia's insistence that the reason brutal death metal has no article is because it's a term thrown around with no consistent meaning. On the contrary - like I've said, it has little meaning when applied to modern technical death metal bands, but it is indeed a valid genre, with recognizable, unique traits. 166.249.196.193 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "but it is indeed a valid genre, with recognizable, unique traits": To make these sorts of claims on Wikipedia, you need reliable sources to back you up (which you do recognise). Youtube videos don't cut it. Until you can provide significant evidence to the contrary, brutal (br00tal?) death metal is not a "valid genre" as far as we are concerned here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, please use the "Show preview" button before you post a comment so you don't have to make a whole bunch of needless minor edits after the fact. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol simply put; "brutal death metal" is not a genre • GunMetal Angel 02:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is, although uninformed metalheads often mistakenly categorize standard death metal bands like Cannibal Corpse and Deicide as such. Brutal death metal basically began with Suffocation's emphasis on atonal rhythms and juxtaposing unusually groovy death metal riffs with frantically fast sections while utilizing intricate technicality. Further affirming its legitimacy as a genre, there is even a subgenre of brutal death metal, slam death metal, with a strong and very distinct following. Meanwhile, bands like Severed Savior, Defeated Sanity and Wormed fuse brutal death with technical death metal; in many ways brutal and technical death metal can be seen as counterparts, sharing a stylistic predecessor in Suffocation. The categories "brutal" and "slam" death metal are frequently used in extreme metal magazines and blogs. To exclude it is plain prejudice. 74.93.22.214 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Source? Don't use blogs or webzines. They fail WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Baz is 100% correct. If you have bona fide secondary source references for this, go right ahead and introduce them. However, if the best this gets is lip service in a fanzine, it fails. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

slam death metal lol, if we create a wiki article for that genre we might as well start making pages for every imaginary last fm genre

Slam is legit. Simply put, it's an off-shoot of Brutal DM which puts a greater emphasis on so called "slams" (a style of breakdown which originated in the brutal subgenre, and is also distinct from metalcore-style breaks in that it uses long, lingering notes instead of the staccato riffing of core breaks) and mid-paced rhythm sections, with a subtle but noticeable hip-hop element as well. Vocals utilize a more frog-like gurgle as opposed to the deeper growls of brutal death metal.Theorycreation (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this called Grindcore by any chance? zubrowka74 16:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, Grindcore's totally different. Trust me. Go compare early Carcass vs. Short Bus Pile Up and tell me there's not a difference between grind and slam.Theorycreation (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did provide sources from reliable sites and magazines earlier (with my old Brc2000 account) including an article from the NY Times that mentions it, but apparently you need to find a dedicated article about it, not just a mention in an interview, review or band biography. Though for some reason the same rule doesn't apply to the mentioning of blackened death metal in the article. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, after a quick search I managed to find [this], which is at least as good as the sources that are provided for blackened death metal. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how this has been pretty much ignored. I hate to pull the "bias" card, but that's what it looks like to me. And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes modern brutal death metal for the most part. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Subgenres and Fusion genres

This stuff needs to be cleared up.

Subgenres are: melodic death metal, technical death metal, progressive death metal, and brutal death metal (which is being entirely dismissed, sadly). These are subgenres on the basis that they do not incorporate any specific genre into the death metal formula, but rather alter the formula itself with "objective techniques".

Fusion genres include: deathcore, blackened death metal, doom/death metal (sometimes called funeral doom), deathgrind, and death'n'roll. These are fusion genres on the basis that they combine aesthetics of other established genres with the death metal formula, instead of altering it with "objective techniques".

Goregrind is not a subgenre, but not entirely accepted as a fusion genre of death metal either, it is rather a subgenre of grindcore than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.32.140 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. You haven't provided any sources to back uo what you're saying, whereas the material in the article has been reliably sourced. You have essentially wasted your time even typing that edit out. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Goregrind and deathgrind should not be grouped together. Period. Yes, both are death metal / grindcore fusion genres, but treating them as though they're at all similar is ridiculous. Not only is the text pulled directly from an older version of the deathgrind article, the only genre explored or given examples of IS deathgrind. It's very misleading. 68.47.13.178 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so improve the article. Don't just delete material; find some pertinent, sourced examples of goregrind and list them; I see no problem with them being grouped together as death metal/grindcore subgenres. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are the sources given for blackened death metal much better than the ones I provided for brutal death metal? It needs some consistency. They both have a tiny bit explaining that blackened death metal is a combination of black and death metal, but that's pretty much it SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Dethklok: Best-selling death metal ever?

According to the AV Club, Dethklok's first two albums are "the highest-charting death metal albums of all time, bringing a whole new audience to the genre." This should probably be addressed on the page here. As of late 2003, the best-selling group was Cannibal Corpse. [7] Aryder779 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

With the questionable bona fide nature of the source notwithstanding, the article itself doesn't make any such claim. It states that Dethklok is the highest charting. But it also claims that Dethklok has "billions" of fans. Dethklok has come nowhere near the combined sales of Death (since the Relapse reissues hit stores within the last two years), for example. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And we have to keep in mind that there is a fictionnal band with billons of fans and real band with more realistic figures. It would be ironic if the real band achieved the same status as the fictionnal outfit. zubrowka74 13:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

;) \m/ A Sniper (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of "bands" or "artists" instead of "acts"

I would like to use the words "bands" or "artists" instead of "acts" because the former don't lead to misconceptions, whereas the latter may also be used to indicate a circus or theater performance, e.g. in the sense of a theatrical play having four or five acts. This (the use of "bands" rather than "acts") would also apply to articles about musicians or bands, provided many Wikipedia articles about pop music artists list related artists as related "acts". What do you think? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Down tuned guitars?

Death metal guitarist use low tuned guitars!

Difference? ABC paulista (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Slam

Ok... now while I highly agree that "brutal death metal" is not really a genre versus "death metal" since there's really not much at all that warrants it being its own thing besides maybe just heavier riffs and guttural vocals, but I really think slam death metal should have its own article and very soon with the rise of peak it's at, enough big publications are going to write stories about it. I mean maybe slam wasn't a genre 7 years ago, but it sure is a genre now! I mean look; how can you even really compare this to this, and let alone call these two things the same thing? Even a twelve year old who has never been exposed to anything metal could agree there is definitely a difference in death metal and slam death metal. If technical death metal can be its own thing, then slam definitely deserves to be. Second Skin (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Death metal

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Death metal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AllMusic":

• From Kreator: Vincent Jeffries. "AllMusic - Review of Terrible Certainty". AllMusic. Retrieved 26 March 2007.
• From Symphonic black metal: "Symphonic Black Metal : Significant Albums, Artists and Songs, Most Viewed : AllMusic". AllMusic. Retrieved 2 September 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore?

Since when is death metal even remotely rooted in hardcore? Yes, it's often fused with it, but there are simply no stylistic similarities at all. Early death metal is, first and foremost, really just glorified thrash metal. Much like how grindcore is souped-up crust punk/hardcore. And even though there's a source stating it, it's just incorrect. It's not true, the earliest forms of death metal have absolutely no hardcore in them whatsoever. Listen to Death, Mantas, Possessed, Sepultura and Morbid Angel and tell me there's hardcore there? There's none, you won't find it. Hardcore should be removed. Also, no, bands that "influenced" death metal weren't playing hardcore either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.1.126 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We have a source, you have what? And besides, you say that early death metal is glorified thrash metal, so clearly Death Metal has Hardcore Punk elements within it since Thrash Metal has plenty of Hardcore Punk elements. ABC paulista (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

punk rock -> hardcore --> thrash metal --> death metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.64.147 (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Cannibal Corpse & Deicide pioneers? no refs.

first i removed the above bands from the pioneers of Death Metal and replaced one of them with Autopsy and this ref which proves that not only are one of the pioneer of Death metal but also are pioneers of Death/doom. BUT someone removed Autopsy and the ref and restored the Cannibal Corpse & Deicide. now i place 2 Citation needed in front of them,so if anyone knows a ref for them,place them in front of them or i am going to remove them again,if anyone restore them without ref again,i will remove them again,same work i did with Sodom page,which i placed "black metal (early)" several times with 2 refs in front of it but someone always removed it,i continued placing that until s/he stoped.

References

Pejorative genre name

Dearth Meatball — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.215.202 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=113803
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113120317/http://www.earache.com/WickedWorld/interview/possessed/possessed.html to http://www.earache.com/WickedWorld/interview/possessed/possessed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325022446/http://www.officialatheist.com:80/index.php?item=biography to http://www.officialatheist.com/index.php?item=biography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604092255/http://www.waytooloud.com:80/2007/10/23/cannibal-corpse-alex-webster-and-george-%E2%80%9Ccorpsegrinder%E2%80%9D-fisher/ to http://www.waytooloud.com/2007/10/23/cannibal-corpse-alex-webster-and-george-%E2%80%9Ccorpsegrinder%E2%80%9D-fisher/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Vocals in infobox

@ABC paulista I don't see what there is to discuss. What is the disadvantage of mentioning in the infobox the vocal technique that, as evidenced both in this article and in its own article, is definitive of death metal?--MASHAUNIX 16:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Death Growls is not exclusive for Death Metal. Yes, it is more commonly associated with Death Metal, but it is used in many more genres than that, since the Growl's creation is dated from centuries ago. And Death Growl isn't the only vocal style that is used on Death Metal. Some could even argue that is some Death Metal's subgenres, like in Melodic Death Metal, the growl isn't even the proeminent technique used, being substituted by a Black Metal-like shreiking, so it's not even a consesus under the genre itself.

The problem lies in the fact that adding Death Growl alongside Vocals in the infobox would open a kinda dangerous precedent. Infos inside infoboxes like that one must be the most concise, even vague, possible to encompass all the subgenres and substyles explained in the article (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose), so adding a more specific feature (trait, technique, style, etc) would open the gates for all other kinds of specific features. You don't see Shreiks on Bleack metal's infobox, you don't Fuzz Bass on Stoner Metal's infobox, you don't see Double Bass Drum in extreme metals' infoboxes, you don't see Tube Organ on Death-doom infobox, etc. So, imagine that ALL this kind of info being added to the infoox: That would become gigantic, and this goes against the WP:MOS.

So, adding Detah Grows goes agains being concise and might hurt WP:MOS and MOS:INFOBOX. ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox of stoner rock does list prominent guitar effects... These things should be treated in a case-to-case basis, not as "precedents". If someone thinks it goes against WP:MOS etc., they can suggest it be removed.

The growling technique might have predecessors, but in its current form it has undoubtedly been developed in death metal (hence the term "death growl") before spreading to genres that were influenced by death metal like grindcore, groove metal and metalcore... It is by far the most popular technique used by death metal bands, even though some melodeath bands may be the exception. Therefore, I think the mention is fully justified, but to meet your concerns, I'll include it in "other topics" instead.--MASHAUNIX 12:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Liked the solution that you've found. It should suffice. ABC paulista (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617183213/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20081202153909/http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/07/19/Arts/phantom.Limb.Exorcises.Its.Emotions-2925041.shtml to http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/07/19/Arts/phantom.Limb.Exorcises.Its.Emotions-2925041.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Slam death metal

@Second Skin: The first source clerly states: For those who aren't familiar with the slam death metal genre, here's a quick summation. The genre evolved from the '90s New York death metal scene, incorporating elements of hardcore. It's not so focused on guitar solos and blast beats aren't so important; it's more about utilizing mid-tempos (and you can't forget the breakdowns), palm-muted riffage, the occasional surprising element of hip hop-inspired vocal and drum beat rhythms, and a healthy dose of growls and grunts. Oh -- and this genre takes the macabre of death metal to the extreme. So all of your changes and band additions are unsourced, thereby being innadequated for this place. Even Brutal Death metal isn't listed here as a subgenre because of a lack of valid sources. ABC paulista (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Closest thing to Death metal in 1982

hardcore punk grouo Discharge sounds like proto death metal oin 1982. forget metal bands that were then - it's like girls singing compare to this Discharge ‎– Protest And Survive (1982) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAiLqQ8XicsSergey Woropaew (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Subgenres and fusion genres" format change proposal

I propose an edit to the section "Subgenres and fusion genres" to change the current bulleted list to a list of subheadings underneath the main heading "Subgenres and fusion genres". This would allow redirects to the specific subgenres' headings instead of the current trend of sending redirects to the general "Subgenres and fusion genres" section (which could possibly be confusing to users unfamiliar with Wikipedia's redirect system or those who don't know to scroll down to find the specific genre they were looking for). Why would we want the link "[[Death metal#Subgenres and fusion genres|Slam death metal]]" to redirect to "Death metal#Subgenres and fusion genres" when a simple reformatting of the section would allow other articles to link to the more specific "Death metal#Slam death metal" so that users can more easily see the genre they clicked through to read about? — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Prog combined with Tech subgenre

Technical Death is derivative of Prog but are nowhere near the same subgenre. Nile and Opeth sound nothing alike.

"Technical death metal (also known as tech-death, progressive death metal, or prog-death)[134] is a subgenre of death metal which employs dynamic song structures, uncommon time signatures, atypical rhythms and unusual harmonies and melodies. Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz or classical music. While the term technical death metal is sometimes used to describe bands that focus on speed and extremity as well as complexity, the line between progressive and technical death metal is thin. Tech death and prog death, for short, are terms commonly applied to such bands as Nile, Edge of Sanity, and Opeth. Necrophagist and Spawn of Possession are known for a classical music-influenced death metal style. Death metal pioneers Death also refined their style in a more progressive direction in their final years. Some albums for this subgenre are Hallucinations (1990) by the German band Atrocity and Death's Human (1991). This style has significantly influenced many bands, creating a stream that in Europe was carried out at first by bands such as Gory Blister and Electrocution.[135][136] The Polish band Decapitated gained recognition as one of Europe's primary modern technical death metal acts" 2604:6000:9382:5600:5D3D:6D9E:5AC9:2C1E (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources that back-up your claim, feel free to share. ABC paulista (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Death Metal Angola?

Do we really need a disambiguation for a largely unknown film that took $2500 at the box office? Random name (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't think so, i've removed it. Next time just be bold and do the edit yourself if you think it's right. enjoyer -- talk 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Grindcore Subgenres

@Korn:, in the book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture, by Natalie J. Purcell, it is stated that Deathgrind, Goregrind and Pornogrind are styles that mix Death metal with Grindcore, but no "hierarchy" is established between them, so grouping them the way you are doing without sources backing it up is considered original research, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The book might not be used in this article in particluar, but it's used in each respective article as source. ABC paulista (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Metal rules.

Persons ask why metal I love. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Metal rules.

Yeah metal is not dead. Still lives on. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

People really don't know death metal come along way.

Deathmetal come along way. back before our time. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

1983-4

This is Jeff from Possessed. These years are cooked. The media has always misled the fans because of a few revisionists and the actual history of Death Metal is actually better than the false claims. Put simply, I think we came too early and so many people were unable to understand what was going on. Of course, after I was shot and people thought I was never coming back Possessed went from the only Death Metal band to being massively downplayed. So many band labels, knowing there is a certain intrinsic value that comes with being the “1st “ began spinning stories in wn attempt to cash in during my absence . 1983 start date has went from just Possessed to a multitude of workarounds. To say that “Death formed in 83” is simply not true. According to Kam Lee “While Mantas we’re around in 83 they were a Venom cover band with one original that sounded like Venom “Chuck joined Mantas which quickly became the mighty Death.

Keep in mind, every member of Death also knew/knows what happened. Chuck was extremely taken with Possessed, Death Metal. Possessed were apples to oranges different than anything else at that tine.

In 83-84 Possessed were so far over the top. Back then it was like the most brutal death metal of today because at that time we were literally the heaviest fastest band in the planet. And. Ring “the heaviest” very quickly and early on became the benchmark. Once we opened Pandora’s box bands started getting heavier and heavier in a race to become the new heaviest. And with this Death Metal became more than Possessed,

I am certainly not trying to claim all things Death Metal. I just want people to know the truth. Which is that Possessed were unequivocally the first Death Metal band and created the original Death Metal style.

I was robbed of a big part of my life and I love Death Metal. It’s history.

It’s probably worth pointing out that not one of these bands that claim to have “invented Death Metal” would never say that to my face. Especially if the were actually there as well, there are still far too many of us around that were there and know the truth.

I am still trying to figure out how “Noise Records” is being attributed to “creating death metal” a year after we did. In fact, it’s a bull shit logic to say that because there are heavier bands Possessed should be blotted from what we did.

That logic goes both ways. And truthfully, since Possessed were the very first, it could also be said that it’s the purest form.

Anyone who claims to have “invented” DM before Possessed are posing hard and they know it. We would have never tried to sound it take credit for another bands efforts.

At the same time the most important thing is that Death Metal as a genre, and it’s true I brainwashed history be kept alive.

Chuck made no secret that he modeled Death after Possessed. He was in correspondence with me and literally moved into the California Possessed Fan Club President’s house (Krystal Mahoney) in Antioch in order to be closer to us. Chuck and I became friends and was truly one of the first people that followed in our footsteps. He was proud of me and I am proud of him. The only “rivalry” stemmed from greedy revisionist managers, labels and the lucrative business of the industry.

Possessed was the first, and this means we will forever be downplayed and despised by everyone who thinks newer is older.

Of course, I see it in the old school pre-cancel culture way. I support ALL Death Metal bands. Being first is both a blessing and a curse.

Long live Death Metal. May it’s true history be known and brought to light. Death to posers. 2601:200:4000:1D80:C938:CB87:15D8:1DC5 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

Wanted to check on this - the "Not to be confused with" template says it's to be used as below:

"This hatnote is generally used when readers have misspelled their desired title, and the error would be apparent by simply displaying the alternative term without further explanation. For example, consider a reader looking for the punctuation mark who instead ends up at coma:"

Does this really apply to deathrock in this article? Deathrock certainly isn't a misspelling, and have to be honest, I don't have any idea what deathrock is - I'd definitely need further explanation. Does that deserve a section in the article under associated styles rather than a misuse of the "Not to be confused with" element? Random name (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Goregrind

On this page there is some criticism regarding the Deathgrind/goregrind part. I want to add something to that critique. It's too bad the source, Terrorizer Magazine 181, is not readily available. I'm writing a piece about goregrind (for my blog) and came to the conclusion the genre is not focused on complexity at all. It's raw and brutal like grindcore, but often it's less serious, and more sloppy and crude than grindcore. The death metal influence is mainly impacting the lyrics. This sentence might not be appropriate for goregrind: "brevity of grindcore with the complexity of death metal". I've bought Terrorizer Magazine 181 from Ebay, will have to wait to check the article. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Just remember that your view as a wikipedian fails WP:RS because of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so if it were to be included on the article it might have reliable third-party sources to back it up. ABC paulista (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't I said I bought the sourced magazine to check if the claim was even made in the source? I think it's WP:NPOV and WP:OR to begin with. Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime https://www.academia.edu/764000/BRUTAL_BELONGING_IN_MELBOURNES_GRINDCORE_SCENE

"Grindcore adopted death-metal’s vocal element and loud volumes, but merged these forms with punk sartorialism and politics. Bands play short, fast songs, characterized by punk riffs, extremely fast drumming (blastbeats) and screamed vocals. Unlike heavy metal, and death metal, grindcore is not melodic and usually does not feature guitar solos (cf. Purcell, 2003; Walser, 1993; Weinstein, 2000). However, similar to death metal, grindcore lyrics are predominantly violent. Yet, grindcore’s aggression largely targets the machinations of late-capitalist culture.7 Radical politics still forms a key element of contemporary grindcore music.8 Nevertheless, there has been a recent shift toward gorier imagery, in the ‘‘gore-grind’’ subgenre. Here, lyrics are simply violent for the sake of violence, rather than violence with a radical message (see albums by Fuck y I’m Dead, 2001; Undinism, 2002; Vaginal Carnage, 2002). However, gore-grind music remains in the punk style." Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Another quote https://www.ckz.si/arhiv/274/CKZ_274_Notranja_net-199-214.pdf "Both technical death metal and powerviolence (PW) can be seen as an opposite to porno-gore grind (PGG). Namely, contrary to the above-mentioned technical skill, PGG musically is based on a very simple style of usually a groovy metalized polka dance rhythm that is “brutalized” by blast-beats and the vocals of bubbling, grunting or (pig)squealing that represent the main characteristic"of the sub-genre."

More https://books.google.nl/books?id=4BEeEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false "(Plazola 2015: 147) Plazola's study applies these characteristics that he attributes to grindcore to subgenres such as pornogrind and goregrind, 12 the latter considered to be more influenced by punk and hardcore scenes (Overell 2010..." Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about your assesement of the genre, your "conclusion", which the second source does seem to support it. The other two just state that the genre have more punk charactersitics, which tells us nothing about its complexity. ABC paulista (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that hardly anyone can verify the claim goregrind has "the complexity of death metal". I assume it's not in the source, because it's demonstrably untrue. Hence, I think the claim doesn't need to be disproven. It can be deleted and a (verifiable) source can be used to make a valid claim about the genre, and no, it doesn't need to tell us anything about its complexity. Just to be on the safe side, I bought the magazine, I'll have to wait for it to be shipped. Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that that subsection deals with multiple combinations of Grindcore and Death Metal and isn't focused on Goregrind, so the statements contained there might not be appliable to all the iterations, but what is generally observed in such combinations. In all, I think that this issue might be easier resolved by tweaking the phrase a bit, just stating that these genres combine characteristics of Grindcore with Death metal, without being more specific about it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Easier done than said. I removed a few words Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, that's the spirit. ABC paulista (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not restore Cannibal Corpse as a band that exemplifies brutal death metal

Cannibal Corpse is a precursor to brutal death metal, and are not themselves a brutal death metal band. See this book, which describes their first two albums as precursors to brutal death metal (meaning not themselves brutal death metal), and sources do not generally describe their later albums as brutal death metal either. —Alalch E. 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A student newspaper article was used to support the claim that Cannibal Corpse exemplifies brutal death metal (being listed in a short list of bands in this one-paragraph overview of the subgenre, automatically indicates that the band exemplifies the sound). However, a student newspaper is a not a reliable source for the sensitive matter of ascribing precise genre labels to bands, which requires expertise in the subject area by the author; see WP:RSSM: Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred ... (emphasis mine). —Alalch E. 00:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because a band is considered as a percursor of a genre doesn't mean that itself can't be part of it, we have examples of bands being considered both like Venom is for Black metal, or Melvins is for Sludge metal. Also, Kerrang describes Cannibal Corpse as Brutal death metal multiple times. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There are problems with that source.

1. Eaten Back To Life (1990, first album) is not described as brutal death metal, and is described as an incredible old-school death metal record by a killer band...who just aren’t there yet
2. Butchered At Birth (1991, second album) is not described as brutal death metal
3. Tomb Of The Mutilated (1992, third album) is not described as brutal death metal
4. The Bleeding (1994, fourth album) is described as The Bleeding is Cannibal Corpse’s “mainstream” album and Stripped, Raped, And Strangled is in many ways the band’s most accessible song, so "manstream" and "accessible", and then it continues with the following odd remark: At the same time, it’s hard to argue that this album is anything but pure brutal death metal. To me, this does not mean that the reviewer actually considers this album to belong in the brutal death metal subgenre stylistically, but is using the words "brutal death metal" to contrast the heaviness and the brutality of the album with earlier statements how it's more accessible than their previous albums.

The construction of that sentence is obviously rhetorical as uses the word "brutal" to compensete for previously used "mainstream" and "accessible". To me, this does not support the claim that Cannibal Corpse is an exemplifying the brutal death metal subgenre. Ths is just not the right type of writing that we should use for precise claims about a subgenre. —Alalch E. 01:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Being "mainstream" and "accessible" doesn't automatically remove its belonging to a specific genre, because they are two separated and mostly unrelated concepts. Not being accessible or mainstream isn't a prerequisite to be a Brutal death metal band, since this designation describes the bean's sound, the kind of music they play, not the amount of popularity they can achieve, so when they say that The Bleeding is "anything but pure brutal death metal", they say that the album still belongs to the genre regardless of its popularity.

Also, for a band to be considered part of a genre doesn't mean that every single album has to have the same designation, the band just have to be designated as such by a reliable source to satisfy WP:EXPLICITGENRE. It's not necessary to pinpoint where the designation is justified, being recognized by reputable people/institutions is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging other editors who have recently made edits to this content: @Binksternet and Second Skin: Please weigh in. Do sources support the claim that Cannibal Corpse is a band that exemplifies brutal death metal to such a degree that we would list them as a prime example of the subgenre along with only a handful of other bands that exemplify the genre (Dying Fetus, Suffocation, Cryptopsy, and Skinless)? —Alalch E. 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Consequence.net said that the band is known for their "brutal palate", that they "excel at making brutal death metal memorable, if not palatable," and that they have a "legacy of brutality." Satisfies WP:EXPLICITGENRE. Seems pretty solid to me. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture state that With little contention, Cannibal Corpse's first album, Eaten Back to Life, was deemed pure, brutal Death Metal, the book Extreme Metal II state that Buffalo band Cannibal Corpse are perhaps the most devoted brutal death metal act in this book, rarely diverging from the path of the blastbeat and the throaty roar., and both this book and Masterclass directly cites it as a Brutal Death metal band. ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)